Ron Paul is Not a racist

News about him supposedly being a racist is making the rounds again and it looks as though it could hurt him – especially if it continues to be reported uncritically that the racist screed in his 1980s newsletter was his, when in fact it was not.

I don’t know what the Paul campaign is planning to do about this, but Texas Monthly reported in October 2001:

In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a â€œfraudâ€ and a â€œhalf-educated victimologist.â€ In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: â€œGiven the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the â€˜criminal justice system,â€™ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.â€ And under the headline â€œTerrorist Update,â€ he wrote: â€œIf you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.â€ In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of â€œcurrent events and statistical reports of the time.â€ He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, â€œI could never say this in the campaign, but those words werenâ€™t really written by me. It wasnâ€™t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.â€ Paul says that item ended up there because â€œwe wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.â€

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: â€œThey were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesnâ€™t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said thatâ€™s too confusing. â€˜It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.â€™â€ It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

Ron Paul is not a racist. He is an individualist. An individualist with a PR problem.

Post navigation

11 thoughts on “Ron Paul is Not a racist”

I strongly recommend Ron Paul’s article, from his “Texas Straight Talk” archives, which states the following: “Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations. In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us. The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms or groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.” I apologize that I don’t know how to send an actual link.

…True enough OG. It didn’t take the sonsofbitches long to pull the “Race” Gun did it? But, your accurate observation not withstanding. The simple valor of Ron Paul vs. the secure, if not arrogant bullying of Rudolf Giuliani was seen widely by the Public at large as rare demonstration of veracity in what passes for “Televised Debate…” Hell, the instant Media reaction of the War Party alone corroborates it. But far more important: The American electorate heard for the first time that which it has desired to, yet quietly sublimated for the last 4 years. Namely a single, just arbiter standing for the truth over another collective exercise in promoting State approved fiction.

Thus edified, I think it may have marked the first crack in the neo-Con/Leftist dam of Partisan support…At this point—and bear in mind 30 days can be a light year in Polity—I could only describe that moment as one of portent, and utter surprise on the part of Congressman Paul’s Political adversaries…We’ll see what happens down, the, well known road…Frankly—and I offer this to everyone—I have a gnawing fear that; what has long been thought of in this Nation as an impossibility, is now on its way to becoming a very ugly reality—Which to me is never very beautiful to begin with.

…Suffice it to say that there is a place where “Racism” as defined by the Left ends, and reality, namely the reality of perhaps getting killed begins…I live there, Bill Clinton, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon and Donna Shalala do not. That’s about as plain as I can make it.

…It always interested me as I watched the Counter Culture of The 60′s unfold in Southern California, a slogan of the era ran: “You can’t legislate morality.” Yet the first thing “New Left” tried to do when it matured as a Political Force, was precisely that. Morality, is only legislated selectively for ephemeral purposes…an unjust and dangerous means to an end.

Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist â€“ and made derogatory comments about African Americans – has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasnâ€™t even aware of them.

These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time – focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.

The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were â€œ60 miles awayâ€ from Ron Paulâ€™s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.

â€œThis was a big operation,â€ says one source. â€œAnd Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.â€

This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a â€œRon Paulâ€ column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

Says one source, â€œRon Paul didnâ€™t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.â€

Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken “moral” responsibility for them.

An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:

“In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of ‘current events and statistical reports of the time.’ He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

“When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, ‘I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.’ …

“His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: ‘They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. “It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.” ‘ It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.”

The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: â€œWhat made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.â€ The remarks may well have been seen as out of character because they were not written by Ron Paul, and he had no knowledge of them and no input into their composition, even though he eventually took responsibility for them.

Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, â€œAnybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written â€“ and thereâ€™s lots of it â€“ could see that right away.â€